Lieberman: Maybe we should go into Syria, too

posted at 11:45 am on March 27, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

While the US continues its bombardments in a country that the Defense Secretary today admitted posed no national-security threat and was not a “vital national interest” to the US, an equally brutal crackdown on a rising rebellion continues in Syria, a nation that helps support and control much of the region’s terrorism. Demonstrations in the city of Latakia resulted in Syrian security forces opening fire on protesters, while Bashar Assad’s government blamed the shooting on “unknown armed gangs.” Either way, a least 12 more died from the latest violence:

Dozens of people have been killed in a number of Syrian cities after protests against President Bashar al-Assad’s regime flared up more than a week ago.

Ten people, including members of the security forces, residents and two members of “armed elements” died in the Latakia violence, the state-run news agency said, adding that at least two people were killed by rooftop snipers. Around 200 others, mostly members of the security forces, were reported to have been injured.

Ammar Qurabi, an exile in Egypt who heads Syria‘s National Organisation for Human Rights, told the Associated Press that dozens of people had protested in Latakia before attacking the Ba’ath party’s offices in the city.

Demonstrators also attacked a police station and the Ba’ath party offices in the town of Tafas, six miles (10km) north of the southern border city of Daraa, the epicentre of the anti-government protests.

An activist in Daraa told AP that up 1,200 people were still holding a silent sit-in the al-Omari mosque.

Assad’s father had a unique way of dealing with protests. Almost thirty years ago, Hafez Assad bombed the city of Hama to end unrest there, killing 10,000 people and setting a bloody example of how far the Assads would go to hold power. His son has yet to order anything of that scale, but the rules of engagement keep getting more loose for his security forces, and it’s only a matter of time before a large-scale attack civilians will be ordered — and necessary — to preserve the regime.

Where exactly is the White House on Syria? Barack Obama seemed anxious to push an American ally out of power in Egypt for far less, and started a war with Libya for not much more. The reticence to confront Syria, where the US and the West have a good argument on national security, comes from the Obama administration’s feckless policy regarding Assad over the last two years, reports the New York Times:

Indeed, the crackdown calls into question the entire American engagement with Syria. Last June, the State Department organized a delegation from Microsoft, Dell and Cisco Systems to visit Mr. Assad with the message that he could attract more investment if he stopped censoring Facebook and Twitter. While the administration renewed economic sanctions against Syria, it approved export licenses for some civilian aircraft parts.

The Bush administration, by contrast, largely shunned Damascus, recalling its ambassador in February 2005 after the assassination of a former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri. Many Lebanese accuse Syria of involvement in the assassination, a charge it denies.

When Mr. Obama named Mr. Ford as his envoy last year, Republicans in the Senate held up the appointment for months, arguing that the United States should not reward Syria with closer ties. The administration said it would have more influence by restoring an ambassador.

But officials also concede that Mr. Assad has been an endless source of frustration — deepening ties with Iran and the Islamic militant group Hezbollah; undermining the government of Saad Hariri in Lebanon; pursuing a nuclear program; and failing to deliver on promises of reform.

Some analysts said that the United States was so eager to use Syria to break the deadlock on Middle East peace negotiations that it had failed to push Mr. Assad harder on political reforms.

Putting aside Hariri’s assassination, we know this much about Syria. It allies itself with Iran, it supports Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza. They tried building a secret nuclear-weapons site that Israel destroyed a few years ago. The government of Syria gave shelter to terrorists operating in Iraq against our own troops over the last eight years. And Obama thinks that Assad is a partner for peace?

This looks disturbingly reminiscent of the summer of 2009, when Obama sat on the sidelines while Iranians filled the streets in opposition to the mullahcracy in the vain hope that his silence would give him an opportunity to talk the mullahs out of their nukes. We’re missing yet another opportunity to change the balance of power in the Middle East in our favor, while we bomb a country that had become more or less irrelevant to our interests for doing exactly what Assad is doing now.

Joe Lieberman thinks we should follow the “right” precedent and attack Syria, too, saying it will further cement us on the side of the “Arab people”:

So … what is the strategy here, exactly? We should attack nations at the behest of the Arab League rather than by considering our own national interests? We should conduct a war against all brutal Arab dictatorships? I like Lieberman, but the “precedent” he uses here is rubbish, or should be. We should have put pressure on Syria over the last two years, rather than sweet-talk them, and we should have used our military power to advance American interests. We arguable had some interest in Libya, but the time to use that military pressure is when it had some chance of success for a quick resolution, not a last-ditch effort to impose a stalemate that will ensure a long and bloody civil war. In Syria, our national interests and security interests are much more clear — as they are in Iran. We’ve managed to get ourselves completely backwards, mainly by using the line of thinking Lieberman uses in which the Arab “street” interests dictate our policies rather than our own interests.

And he can pay for it with his money.
Tomahawks and Cruise missiles ain’t cheap you know. And the 100+ we just lobbed at Qaddafi on behalf of Al Qaeda in the Maghreb are gonna start adding up to real money pretty soon. Or does lieberman think that Obama and Bernanke should just print up another trillion dollars out of thin air to soak up the costs.

Putting aside Hariri’s assassination, we know this much about Syria. It allies itself with Iran, it supports Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza. They tried building a secret nuclear-weapons site that Israel destroyed a few years ago. The government of Syria gave shelter to terrorists operating in Iraq against our own troops over the last eight years. And Obama thinks that Assad is a partner for peace?

But of course.

Obama is using the Iranian and Syrian threats as leverage against Israel, even though he says they’re no linkage.

If the United States is going to involve itself in every penny-ante conflict around the world, let’s wait until we have some mature, patriotic leaders. That means, to be blunt, we wait until the Osama Obama regime has been dismantled and its key actors sent off to obscurity (or prison), and Congress is rid of all the self-satisfied, unrealistic, senile fools who are shooting off their mouths. Sadly, that includes Lieberman and McCain who were, despite their other failings, patriots at one time.

I didn’t like what Dubya did with Iraq (and have taken a lot of heat for that from “conservatives”), just I did not approve of what Ike, JFK, LBJ and Nixon did in Vietnam. Even the most noble of motives become worthless when there is a lack of direction and unwillingness to win a war at the top.

I have no problem with removing Mad Moammar, Mad Mahmoud, Baby Assad and Li’l Kim from the world’s stage. Nor, after 9/11, do I have a problem with toppling the House of Saud.

But I fear our present government — and, sadly, the armchair commandos running the military — will do what they’re doing for the wrong reasons, and will bungle it badly. That’s the precedent set in Korea, Vietnam, and in Gulf War I.

Back in Medieval Europe, Good Friday was a big day of rage for pretty much the same kind of oppressed masses you seem to romanticize, Joe. They usually started by torching the local synagogue and ended by besieging the castle before being cut to ribbons by sallying knights. But yes, I’m sure they had some valid talking points.

B: Step one instantly void if crisis can be used to further political career, dismantling of Constitution, or “rebuilding” agenda. See Giffords, Garbrielle

C: Control over media lackeys key to overall plan. If left loses such control, all bets off.

By following these five easy and enjoyable steps, Barack Obama has found the roadmap to a Presidency free of Personal risk. The people he governs may face hardship as a result, but honestly, that’s not really his problem. If, however, American suffering begins to rise to level of a crisis, see Step One.

If the US goes into Syria I think it’s safe to say that among the media hosts, politicians and other “leaders” of the country there will be no decent (with the possible exception of Ron Paul, Kincinich and Rush MIGHT question the motives). It’s a shame and a sham

Don`t worry, we`re not going to do anything. Obama doesn`t want to pi$$ off Assad`s buddy in Iran and he`s already got us stuck in Libya. There`d be no public support for a mission in Syria and Obama won`t risk his poll numbers.

Ed and others keep twisting themselves into knots trying to find a consistent theme, when the one consistent theme is obvious: Obama chooses to act or not to act based upon what will further the interests of radical islamic jihadists.

In this era of whimsical warfare I say let’s take care of that Hugo Chavez problem and free Venezuela from tyranny. Let’s take out Mexico’s corrupt government too. But under absolutely no circumstances should we take measures to deal with our own runaway corrupt government.

Obama chooses to act based upon his 2012 re-election prospects and his perception du jour of current events and their affect upon those. Polls and finger to the wind rule this president, along with his marxist need to dismantle domestic freedom. Foreign policy means nothing to Barry except as it threatens to destroy his ability to diminish the USA.

As bad an idea as this is, at least one could make a much more plausible case for American interests being at stake. Including:

– Syria’s assassination of Hariri, plunging Lebanon in to chaos
– Syria’s support of Hezbollah who continues to make war with our allies in Israel
– Syrian support of terrorist in Iraq who are killing Americans
– Syria acting as a weapons conduit from Iran to terrorists

The list goes on, to include older atrocities such as their part in the Lebanon barracks bombing, Etc.

I am not saying that we should go to war with Syria, I am only saying that we would have a much better case to make if we did than we had in Libya.

Chris Wallace missed one great follow up for Lieberman. What if those freedom fighters are just Al-Qaeda and other terrorists. Who would use any help that the US gives to them just to kill Americans down the road.

Want to bet Castro has killed more of his own people than Baby Assad, Joe? Maybe I missed your calls to attack Fidel. And if Venezuelans rise up against Hugo and he starts killing them, is Joe going to call for attacking Chavez, too?

I’d like to think Liebermann’s simply trying to tweak the anti-Isareli, pro-Hamas contingent in the White House and the State Department here. He’s got to know there’s no way Obama’s going to continence any attack on Assad, because it would make his liberal base — already mad over the Libyan incursion — go certifiably and psychotically nuts, since they see Syria as one of the good guys in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Obama agreeing to do anything, even covertly, to undermine Assad is about as likely as Obama reinstating the ban on federal funding of abortions overseas. Even if he wasn’t scared of his own shadow when it comes to taking the lead on any controversial decision, the Liebermann proposal is not just Dead On Arrival, it’s Dead Before Arrival.

It’s time for all the tired old war mongers to go. Lieberman, McCain, Kerry and Clinton, along with their minions. They obviously are all insane or a long way into dimentia. Getting it backwards is right. As for Obama, I still firmly believe that the Amazon Spice Girls are browbeating him into going along for the ride. He’s present. Also known as PWed. That’s all. He has no strategy other than avoid Michelle’s wrath, as well as Powers’, Rice’s and Clinton’s. He’s the quintessential American Beta Male. He does what the women want.

Joe better be careful. The amazons over UN might just use the “humanitarian reasons” to go after Israel the next time Israel decides to punish a bunch of terrorists. This “humanitarian” bs reason to get involved in this kinetic thingy is pretty open ended and can mean almost anything to UN types.

if Venezuelans rise up against Hugo and he starts killing them, is Joe going to call for attacking Chavez, too?

Christien on March 27, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Of course not. Venezuelans aren’t Muslim. The whole point of committing our military to the non-war in Libya is to prove to violent, anti-American Muslims in the middle east (a/k/a “the Arab street”) that we’re good guys who’re on their side (so please stop trying to kill us).

The Libyan action really isn’t a war, as the Obama administration sees it. It’s a PR stunt for the Arab street. Of course, they can’t admit that to the public, which is why we have all the contradictory statements coming out of the administration as they struggle to come up with a plausible cover story.

How exactly are we to get to Syria? Syria is landlocked, to bomb that country requires overflight rights. We can physically do it, but if we are going to respect international norms we have to have overflight rights. And if any of Syria’s neighbors does give us overflight rights, then they have effectively declared war against Syria. Which also means going to war with Iran. Lebanon isn’t going to do that, I doubt Iraq wants to go to war with both Syria & Iran, they are busy rebuilding their own country. Turkey & Saudi Arabia aren’t going to go to war. Even Israel would be hesitant to go to war with Syria, Iran (& Lebanon.)

Libya is easy as we just go in through the coast. Syria is extremely complicated.

We’ve managed to get ourselves completely backwards, mainly by using the line of thinking Lieberman uses in which the Arab “street” interests dictate our policies rather than our own interests.

who is the ‘Arab street?’ That is just as abstract a construct as a the ‘international community’ and making decisions based upon either of these flawed constructs will get us…..well, right where we are right now, I guess.

We have no business intervening in Libya, or Egypt. Both will end up in the hands of Islamists because of the staggering incompetence of little Bammie. The mess that little Bammie will leave us because of his on-the-job training will be greater than that left by Kennedy or Carter.

We should have turned left at Baghdad and proceeded directly to the Med in 2003: that would have made our invasion of the Arab World to be about jihad-tolerant governments and not just about Saddam’s thugocracy (which it never really was). It would also have scared the willy out of those governments and secured Lebanon and Israel for the foreseeable future.

Unfortunately, the ever-cackhanded GWB wanted a ‘legitimate’ pretext for threatening Arab governments with simple death if they didn’t stop letting jihadists run free, and Saddam’s sins provided it. But in the runup to the war, the pretext ate the real reason, going beyond Iraq’s borders became unthinkable, and we lost track of what we were doing.

Failing to also overthrow the Syrian government was arguably the worst foreign policy blunder of the Bush years. Maybe it can be corrected at this late date – it could certainly be corrected if our forces in the region weren’t already over-committed and we had a civilian leadership that didn’t confuse Brownian motion with policy – but do we any longer have a serious enough government that we can trust it to the attempt?

You want to know the real reason we’re in Libya now but not Iran a couple years ago or heading toward Syria now? Obama thinks Libya is a pushover and we’ll “win”. Granted neither Iran or Syria have an Air Force that can stand up to ours, but Libya is, Obama is hoping, a quick in and out and he looks “victorious”. We can’t stop what’s going on in Libya until we have boots on the ground. The probability is this one WILL turn into a quagmire. Obama was betting, routing even, we’d lose President Bush’s war. Look for Obama to start publicly blaming the military for “losing” his.

Since the Arab League wanted us to meddle (despite what they said after we did), you know we shouldn’t have. Always believe the opposite of what the AL says.

This does nothing to stop the Muslim rumors of O. He’s the only POTUS ever to let the AL dictate where and when we should us our military. And yet, O will complain at the top of his voice that he’s not a Muslim and anyone who thinks so is crazy.

Yep. Which is why everyone who wanted a NFZ or even wanted one discussed was dead wrong on this. That idea of supporting a NFZ “back when it would’ve done some good” looks awfully silly knowing that no “good” can ever come out of helping Al-Qaeda.